This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Terry Barker and Jonathan Köhler
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
Technical Report 54
Creating an integrated UK energy-economy-emissions model for the Tyndall Centre E3MG-UK Project T3.2A
Final Report, T3.17
Tyndall Technical report 54
Dr Terry Barker, Department of Applied Economics, University of Cambridge Sidgwick Avenue Cambridge CB3 9DE, 01223 335289. Email firstname.lastname@example.org Dr Jonathan Köhler, Department of Applied Economics, University of Cambridge Sidgwick Avenue Cambridge CB3 9DE, 01223 335289. Email email@example.com
Section 1: Overview of project work and outcomes Non-technical summary Objectives To develop a UK macroeconomic modelling capacity as a part of the E3MG model under development in the round 2 Etech+ project (T2.12) The macro-economic impacts of mitigation policy in the UK have been assessed, using the Cambridge Econometrics MDM-E3 model. MDM-E3 is one of the best-established macroeconomic models for the UK. It differentiates between industries, consumption categories and regions. The global model (E3MG) being developed by Tyndall through the ETech and Etech+ projects has drawn widely on the modelling techniques and experience generated by work with MDM-E3, so that E3MG may be regarded as coming from the same ‘family’ of models. The Tyndall ETech+ project is currently developing the model to incorporate the effects of long-term technological changes upon the economy, carbon emissions and mitigation potential. In order to integrate Tyndall’s global and UK modelling work, it is desirable to develop a UK model (E3MG-UK) that is fully compatible with E3MG and can be ‘nested’ within it. Because of the basic compatibilities between the modelling approaches taken in E3MG and MDM-E3, it seems sensible to use MDM-E3 as the starting point from which E3MG-UK can be derived. Tyndall would then have the capability to analyse energy system/low-carbon developments at a UK level, which would in turn be linked to the global level.
The pilot version of E3MG, E3MG 1.3 was developed from the start of Tyndall Phase I with a disaggregation into four regions – EU, USA, China and the ‘rest of the World’, together with an equation system modelling 32 industrial sectors in each of these regions. Together with matching effort from Cambridge Econometrics, a new, expanded version of E3MG (version 2.0) has been developed. This version separately identifies the UK as part of a 20-region structure. The industrial disaggregation has been expanded to 42 industrial sectors to match with the industries in MDM-E3. Initial
results for three stabilisation scenarios, estimating the economic impact and technology switching in power generation and in a simplified form, in road vehicles have been completed.
The results for the UK have been included within a global analysis for the first set of model runs. The costs of stabilising atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide at three levels 550ppm, 500ppm and 450ppm, with the emissions modelled to 2100 have been assessed. Two policy instruments are used to achieve these targets: emission trading permits for the energy industries and carbon taxes for the rest of the economy, with the revenues recycled to maintain fiscal neutrality. These are applied at different rates and at different times to allow for early action under the UNFCCC for three regional groupings: the USA, the rest of the Annex I countries and all non-Annex I countries. Extra investment is induced by the permit scheme and taxes since they lead to substantial increases in the real cost of burning fossil fuels according to their carbon content. This prompts a switch to low-carbon technologies. The ensuing world-wide wave of extra investment over the century to 2100 raises the rate of economic growth, which is endogenous in the model. There is a purely economic benefit in stabilisation, which increases with more demanding targets. The effects of technological change modelled this way turn out to be sufficiently large in a closed global model to account for a substantial proportion (about 20%) of the long-run growth of the system.
Relevance to Tyndall Centre research strategy
Tyndall modelling capabilities are required at the UK scale as well as at the global scale. To date, the Community integrated Assessment System (CIAS) and its modules have been limited to the global scale. A principal aim of the Research Theme 1 is that it should draw together work across the other themes at the Tyndall Centre. Theme 2 has a UK focus and Theme 3 wishes to analyse adaptation at the UK scale. Thus, an important aspect of integrating Themes 1, 2 and 3 is the building of tools to address the UK scale.
Potential for further work
The E3MG model has been developed to enable economic projections of long-term transitions to a low-carbon society. A wide range of policies can now be modelled. These include carbon taxes, inter-industry and international carbon permit trading (e.g. the EU and Kyoto schemes can be assessed). Policies for technological transitions can be assessed. The UK element of the model can be used in combination with UK climate change impacts assessments to provide analyses of the socio-economic impacts of climate change for the UK in the global context.
Publications and outputs
There are no published outputs yet. The UK model will be used as a basis for providing economic data for the integrated urban analysis in Tyndall phase 2 Q6.
Section 2: Technical Report
Background and objectives
Developing a UK macroeconomic modelling capacity as part of E3MG The UK model MDM-E3 was originally developed under an ESRC project in the Global Environmental Change Programme in the Department of Applied Economics, University of Cambridge (Co-investigators Terry Barker and Paul Ekins). It has since been taken over by Cambridge Econometrics (CE), and is the basis of CE’s EnergyEnvironment Service, with regular six monthly updates of data, estimations and projections. The model is being used and developed in research for the UKERC, under an agreement between CE, University of Cambridge and PSI (UKERC). The solution to having potentially inconsistent and incompatible models (E3MG, MDM-E3 and the EU model E3ME) has been to unify the classifications, data collection, estimation procedures and solution software and to distinguish the UK as a region in all three models, so the Tyndall E3MG is in principle consistent with the other models. Cambridge Econometrics has contributed considerable resources in kind to this work, with a team spending some nine months on the classifications and data in 2004. Thus the UK model (E3MG-UK) is essentially integrated within E3MG, allowing for considerable synergies between the research for Tyndall and the UKERC. (The informal agreement has been that the Tyndall research focuses on global issues relating to climate change mitigation using E3MG, whilst the UKERC focuses on UK issues of decarbonisation and energy policy using MDM-E3 and (in a TSEC project) E3ME.)
Detailed discussions of the research and the results are provided in the Tyndall Working Paper no. 77, Barker T., Kohler J., Pan H., Warren R., Winne S., (2005) Avoiding dangerous climate change by inducing technological progress: scenarios using a large-scale econometric model. A summary follows. In modelling long-run economic growth and technological change, we have followed the “history” approach 1 of cumulative causation (Kaldor, 1957), which focuses on gross investment (Scott, 1989) and trade (McCombie and Thirwall, 1994, 2004), in which technological progress is embodied in gross investment. Long-run growth and structural change through socio-technical systems, called ‘Kondratiev waves’, are described by Freeman and Louçã (2001) and modelled by Köhler (2005). Growth in this approach is dependent on waves of investment in new technologies. The E3MG model is the first to use a large-scale econometric model with a dynamic structure, which is both sector and region specific, to model these processes. A treatment of substitution between fossil and non-fossil fuel technologies is employed, accounting for non-linearities resulting from investment in new technology, learning-by-doing, and innovation. It involves the use of econometric estimation to identify the effects of endogenous technological change (ETC) on exports and energy demand and embed these in a large neo-Keynesian non-linear simulation model. This then allows policy measures for induced
This is contrast to the mainstream equilibrium approach adopted in most economic models of the costs of climate stabilisation. See (DeCanio, 2003) for a critique and (Weyant, 2004) for a discussion of technological change in this approach.
technological change 2 (ITC) to be modelled. The model has been developed in the traditions of the Cambridge dynamic model of the UK economy (Barker and Peterson, 1987) and the European model E3ME (Barker, 1999). The effects of technological change modelled this way turn out to be sufficiently large in a closed global model to account for a substantial proportion (about 20%) of the long-run growth of the system. The approach has been developed to include the bottom-up technology ETM model within the top-down macroeconomic model, E3MG. Thus, like the studies (Nakicenovic and Riahi, 2003; and McFarland, et al., 2004) which are also based on the linkage of top-down and bottom-up models, our modelling approach avoids the typical optimistic bias often attributed to a bottom-up engineering approach, and unduly pessimistic bias of typical macroeconomic approaches. The advantages 3 of using this combined approach have recently been reviewed (Grubb, Köhler and Anderson, 2002). E3MG incorporates endogenous technological change in 3 ways: the sectoral energy and export demand equations include indicators of technological progress in the form of accumulated investment and R&D; the ETM incorporates learning curves through regional investment in energy generation technologies that depend on global scale economies; extra investment in new technologies, in relation to baseline investment induces further output and therefore investment, trade, income, consumption and output in the rest of the world economy through a Keynesian multiplier effect. Table 1 Regional classification in E3MG 2.0 1 USA 2 Japan 3 Germany 4 UK 5 France 6 Italy 7 Rest EU-15 8 EU-10 9 Canada 10 Australia 11 OECD nes (not elsewhere specified) 12 Russian Federation 13 Rest of Annex I 14 China 15 India 16 Mexico 17 Brazil 18 NICs
US JP DE UK FR IT ER EE CA AU RO RS RA CN IN MX BR NI
In the models, exogenous or autonomous technological change is that which is imposed from outside the model, usually in the form of a time trend affecting energy demand or the growth of world output. If, however, the choice of technologies is included within the models and affects energy demand and/or economic growth, then the model includes endogenous technological change (ETC). With ETC, further changes can generally be induced by economic policies, hence the term induced technological change (ITC); this ITC implies ETC throughout the rest of this paper. 3 There are also disadvantages. The coupled model is highly non-linear with the possibility of instabilities, multiple solutions and discontinuities. The solution is simplified by adopting the smooth transitions assumed by Anderson and Winne (2004), but local instabilities remain. We are intending to tackle this problem by using the multiple solution techniques of a Bayesian uncertainty analysis.
OPEC Rest of world
Table 2 industrial classification in E3MG 2.0
NACE REV 1.1 01,02,05 10 11,12 13,14 15,16 17,18,19 20,21 22 23 24.4 24(ex24.4) 25 26 27 28 29 30,32 31,33 34 35 36,37 40.1 40.2,40.3 41 45 50,51 52 55 60,63 61 62 64 65,67 66 72 70,71,73,74.1-74.4 74.5-74.8 75 80 85 90 to 93,95,99 E3ME3.0 1 6 7 2 9 10 11 12 8 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 5 4 3 25 26 27 28 29,32 30 31 33 34 34 35 pt36 pt36 38 39 40 37 41 GTAP 1 to14 15 16,17 18 19 to 26 27 to 29 30 31 32 incl in 33 33 incl in 33 34 35,36 37 incl in 41 40 41 38 39 42 43 44 45 46 incl in 47 incl in 47 incl in 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 incl in 54 incl in 54 incl in 54 56 incl in 56 incl in 56 55 57dwellings UK IO headings 1-3 4 5 6-7 8-20 21-30 31-33 34 35 43 36-42, 44-46 47-48 49-53 54-56 57-61 62-68 69, 73-75 70-72, 76 77 78-80 81-84 85 86 87 88 89-90 91 92 93-94, 97 95 96 98-99 100, 102 101 107 103-106, 108-113 114 115 116 117-118 119-123 124
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
Agriculture etc Coal Oil & gas extraction Non-energy mining Food, drink & tob. Tex., cloth & footw. Wood & paper Printing & pub. Manufactured fuels Pharmaceuticals Chemicals n.e.s. Rubber & plastics Non-metallic min.pr Basic metals etc Metal products Machinery nes Electronics Electrical & instruments Motor vehicles Other transport equip. Other manufactures Electricity etc Gas manu. & distribution Water supply Construction Wholesale trade etc Retail trade Hotels & restaurants Land transport etc Water transport Air transport Communication Banking & finance Insurance Computing services Professional services etc Other business services Public admin. & defence Education Health & social work Other market services Unallocated Total
AG CO OG NE FD TC WP PP MF PH CH RP NM BM MP MA IT EI MV TE OM EL GD WA CN RT WT HR LT WT AT CM BF IN CS PS OB PA ED HS OS UN
Initial stabilisation policy analysis
Cumulative emissions of CO2 to 2100 for different stabilisation levels are derived from the MAGICC (a Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse gas Induced Climate Change) model as used by the IPCC (Watson et al, 2001). The E3MG model is then used to derive a cost-effective emission pathway which keeps cumulative emissions within these limits prescribed by the MAGICC model. Costs of stabilisation are then calculated relative to the baseline. The emission pathways that come from E3MG are then put back into MAGICC to check that with the new profile, the same concentrations are achieved. Many other studies of stabilisation costs (e.g. Nakicenovich and Riahi, 2003); Van Vuuren, 2004) also use the MAGICC climate model to represent the relationship between emissions and concentrations. It is a set of linked reduced form models emulating the behaviour of a GCM. It consists of coupled gas-cycle, radiative forcing, climate and ice-melt models integrated into a single package. It calculates the annualmean global surface air temperature and sea-level implications of emission scenarios for greenhouse gases and sulphur dioxide. Although MAGICC and E3MG both model emissions scenarios detailing non-CO2 greenhouse gases, we do not consider the costs of reducing these gases and their effects in this analysis 4 . CALIBRATION AND CRITICAL VARIABLES The industrial and energy/emissions database 5 covering the years 1971-2001 is drawn from OECD, IEA, GTAP, RIVM, and other national and international sources and processed to provide comprehensive and consistent time-series of varying quality and reliability across regions and sectors. It contains information about the historic changes by region and sector in emissions, energy use, energy prices and taxes, input-output coefficients, and industries’ output, trade, investment and employment. This is supplemented by data on macroeconomic behaviour from the IMF and the World Bank. These data are used to estimate a set of econometric equations using cointegration techniques proposed originally by Engel and Granger (1987) and proposed by Abadir (2004) as appropriate for neo-Keynesian modelling of non-clearing markets in which a long-run solution is not necessarily in equilibrium. E3MG requires as inputs dynamic profiles of population, energy supplies, baseline GDP, government expenditures, tax and interest and exchange rates; and it derives outputs of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, SO2 emissions, energy use and GDP and its expenditure and industrial components. The Common POLES-IMAGE (CPI) baseline has been taken as a starting point. This baseline is derived from the IMAGE IPCC SRES A1B and B2 baselines. CPI assumes continued globalisation, medium technology, continued development, and strong dependence on fossil fuels. Population follows the UN medium projections for 2030, and the UN long-term medium projection between 2030 and 2100. Further details may be found in Criqui et al. (2003). This baseline is used for the population assumptions of E3MG and projections made for government expenditures and per
If the CO2 emission pathway does not result in stabilisation in the full integrated analysis, policy parameters are adjusted in E3MG until a consistent solution is achieved. We judged that the concentrations projected by MAGICC were sufficiently close to the targets given the uncertainties for the conclusions of the paper to hold. 5 The database was constructed, and the equations estimated, by teams in Cambridge Econometrics headed by Rachel Beaven and Sebastian De-Ramon, including Dijon Antony, Ole Lofnaes, Michele Pacillo and Hector Pollitt.
capita household consumption for each region assuming the average growth rate will slow after 2050. With other components of GDP endogenous in the model, GDP (in $ at year 2000 prices and exchange rates) is calculated. Economic growth is near the historic average at 2.3%pa 2000-2100, with higher rates to 2050 and lower rates thereafter. The solution process is complicated. There are three baseline solutions, each yielding closely similar results. The first is the calibrated solution of the model, in which consumers’ expenditures are exogenous. A second un-calibrated solution is derived by including equations explaining these expenditures, and calculating and storing the residuals between the equation solution and the exogenous values. A third endogenous solution then solves the equations with the residuals and so reproduces the calibrated solution. The endogenous solution includes, for each sector and region, sectoral output, employment, energy use and prices and emissions. It is the basis for two baseline sets of carbon dioxide emissions, one in which E3MG and ETM allow technological change, and another in which they do not. In these baseline solutions no new permit schemes or carbon taxes are applied but technological change still occurs and is modelled as a projection of the estimated effects and through learning by doing.
The main conclusion from initial runs of the full E3MG model including the UK is that general technological change alone seems unlikely to lead to decarbonisation. Improvements in energy efficiency are partly offset in their effects on CO2 emissions by the effects of higher growth in exports, incomes and therefore the demand for energy. This phenomenon is a global, macroeconomic counterpart to the rebound effect found in microeconomic studies of energy policies. We conclude that the applications of current cost-effective technologies can decarbonise the world economy, supporting the conclusions of Pacala and Socolow (2004), provided they are specifically driven by increases in the real prices of carbon arising from emission permit schemes and taxes. Our conclusion is conditional on model uncertainties and assumptions, and on specific fiscal polices, with half the permits being freely allocated and the other half auctioned and all government revenues from the permits and taxes recycled back to consumers. If policies are successful in raising real carbon prices, under conditions of macroeconomic stability (so that inflation is unaffected and governmental fiscal rules are followed) then the extra investment is expected to lead to slightly higher global growth and incomes, even for almost complete global decarbonisation.
Abadir, Karim Maher (2004) “Cointegration theory, equilibrium and disequilibrium economics”, The Manchester School 72 (1), 60-71. Anderson, D., and Winne, S. (2004) “Modelling innovation and threshold effects in climate change mitigation” Tyndall Working Paper 59, www.tyndall.ac.uk Barker, Terry (1999) “Achieving a 10% cut in Europe’s carbon dioxide emissions using additional excise duties: coordinated, uncoordinated and unilateral action using the econometric model E3ME”, Economic Systems Research, Vol. 11, No. 4, 1999, pp. 401-421. Barker Terry and William Peterson (1987) (eds) The Cambridge Multisectoral Dynamic Model of the British Economy, Cambridge University Press. Barker, Terry and Sebastian De-Ramon (2005) “Testing the representative agent assumption: the distribution of parameters in a large-scale model of the EU 1972-1998”, Applied Economic Letters, forthcoming. Barker T., Kohler J., Pan H., Warren R., Winne S., (2005) Avoiding dangerous climate change by inducing technological progress: scenarios using a large-scale econometric model: Tyndall Working paper 77. Barker, Terry and Knut Einer Rosendahl (2000) “Ancillary Benefits of GHG Mitigation in Europe: SO2, NOx and PM10 reductions from policies to meet Kyoto targets using the E3ME model and EXTERNE valuations’, Ancillary Benefits and Costs of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation, Proceedings of an IPCC CoSponsored Workshop, March, 2000, OECD, Paris.
Criqui, P., Kitous, A., Berk, M., den Elzen, M, Eickhout, B., Lucas, P., van Vuuren, D., Kouvaritakis, N., and Vanregemorter D. (2003), Greenhouse gas emission reduction pathways in the UNFCCC process up to 2025, Technical Report, study contract B4-3040/2001/325703/MAR/E.1 for DG Environment. DeCanio, Stephen (2003) Economic Models of Climate Change A Critique, Palgrave-Macmillan, New York. Denison, E. F. (1985) Trends in American Economic Growth, 1929-1982, Brookings Institution. Engle, R. F., Granger, C.W.J., (1987), "Cointegration and Error Correction: Representation, Estimation and Testing", Econometrica, 55 Fagerberg, J. (1988), ‘International Competitiveness.’ Economic Journal, 98, pp. 355-374. Freeman, C. and Louçã, F. (2001) As Time Goes By. OUP, Oxford. Gritsevskyi A. and Nakicenovic (2000) Modelling uncertainty of induced technological change, Energy Policy 28 907-921. Grubb M, Köhler J, Anderson D (2002) “Induced technical change in energy and environmental modelling: analytical approached and policy implications”, Ann. Rev. Energy Environ. Vol. 27: 271308 Kaldor, N. (1957) “A model of economic growth”, Economic Journal 67: 591-624. Köhler, Jonathan (2005) “Making (Kondratiev) waves: simulating long run technical change” in: Paul Dewick, Marcela Miozzo and Ken Green (eds.) Technology, Knowledge and the Firm: Implications for Strategy and Industrial Change, Edward Elgar, pp.404-426. Lee, Kevin, Hashem Pesaran and Richard Pierce (1990) “Labour demand equations for the UK economy”, in Disaggregation in Econometric Modelling (eds) Terry Barker and M Hashem Pesaran, Routledge,1990. Maddison, Angus (2001) The World Economy A Millenial Perspective, OECD, Paris. McCombie, J. M. and A.P. Thirlwall (1994) Economic Growth and the Balance of Payments Constraint (Macmillan 1994). McCombie, J.M. and A.P. Thirlwall (2004) Essays on Balance of Payments Constrained Growth: Theory and Evidence, Routledge Press. McDonald, A. and L. Schrattenholzer (2001), “Learning Rates for Energy Technologies”, Energy Policy 29: 255-261 McFarland, J.R. et al. (2004), Representing energy technologies in top-down economic models using bottom-up information. Energy Economics 26: 685 - 707. Nakicenovich, N., and Riahi, K., Model runs with MESSAGE in the Context of the Further Development of the Kyoto Protocol, WGBU, Berlin 2003. www.wgbu.de Pacala, S. and R. Socolow (2004) “Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies.” Science, Vol. 305, August 13, 968-972. Scott, Maurice (1989) A New View of Economic Growth, Clarendon Press, Oxford. Van Vuuren, D.P., de Vries B., Eickhout, B., and Kram, T. (2004) Responses to technology and taxes in a simulated world. Energy Economics 26, 579-601 Wakelin, K (1998) “The role of innovation in bilateral OECD trade performance”, Applied Economics, 30, 10, 1335-1346 Watson et al. (2001) IPCC Third Assessment Report, Climate Change 2001: Mitigation, Summary for Policymakers, IPCC/WMO, Geneva. Weyant, John P. (2004) Introduction and overview: Energy Economics Special Issue EMF 19 study Technology and Global Climate Change Policies. Energy Economics, 26, 501– 515. Wolff, Edward (1994) "Technology, Capital Accumulation, and Long Run Growth", in Jan Fagerberg, Bart Verspagen, and Nick von Tunzelmann eds., The Dynamics of Technology, Trade, and Growth, Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, 1994, 53-74. Wolff, Edward (1994) “Productivity Growth and Capital Intensity on the Sector and Industry Level: Specialization among OECD Countries, 1970-1988", in Gerald Silverberg and Luc Soete eds., The Economics of Growth and Technical Change: Technologies, Nations, Agents, Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
The inter-disciplinary Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research undertakes integrated research into the long-term consequences of climate change for society and into the development of sustainable responses that governments, business-leaders and decision-makers can evaluate and implement. Achieving these objectives brings together UK climate scientists, social scientists, engineers and economists in a unique collaborative research effort. The Tyndall Centre is named after the 19th century UK scientist John Tyndall, who was the first to prove the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in atmospheric composition could bring about climate variations. In addition, he was committed to improving the quality of science education and knowledge. The Tyndall Centre is a partnership of the following institutions: University University University University University University of of of of of of East Anglia Manchester Southampton Sussex Oxford Newcastle
Recent Tyndall Centre Technical Reports
Tyndall Centre Technical Reports are available online at
Anderson D., Barker T., Foxon T., Pan H., Warren R. and Winne S., (2007) Linking air pollution with climate change: Tyndall Centre Technical Report No. 53. Arnell N. and Osborn T., (2007) Interfacing climate and impacts models in integrated assessment modelling: Tyndall Centre Technical Report No. 52. Warren R., de la Nava Santos S., Ford R., Riley G., Bane M., Barton C., and Freeman L., (2007) SoftIAM: Integrated assessment modelling using distributed software components: Tyndall Centre Technical Report No. 51. Challenor, P., (2007) Estimating uncertainty in future assessments of climate change: Tyndall Centre Technical Report No. 50. O'Riordan T., Watkinson A., Milligan J, (2006) Living with a changing coastline: Exploring new forms of governance for sustainable coastal futures: Tyndall Centre Technical Report No. 49. Anderson K., Bows A., Mander S, Shackley S., Agnolucci P., Ekins P., (2006) Decarbonising Modern Societies:Integrated Scenarios Process and Workshops, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 48. Gough C., Shackley S. (2005) An integrated Assesment of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage in the UK. Tyndall Centre Technical Report 47.
The Centre is core funded by the following organisations: Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC) Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) For more information, visit the Tyndall Centre Web site (www.tyndall.ac.uk) or contact: Communications Manager Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK Phone: +44 (0) 1603 59 3906; Fax: +44 (0) 1603 59 3901 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Nicholls R., Hanson S., Balson P., Brown I., French J., Spencer T., (2005) Capturing Geomorphological Change in the Coastal Simulator, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 46 Weatherhead K, Knox J, Ramsden S, Gibbons J, Arnell N. W., Odoni, N, Hiscock K, Sandhu C, Saich A., Conway D, Warwick C, Bharwani S, (2006) Sustainable water resources: A framework for assessing adaptation options in the rural sector, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 45 Weatherhead K, Knox J, Ramsden S, Gibbons J, Arnell N. W., Odoni, N, Hiscock K, Sandhu C, Saich A., Conway D, Warwick C, Bharwani S, (2006) Sustainable water resources: A framework for assessing adaptation options in the rural sector, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 44 Lowe, T. (2006) Vicarious experience vs. scientific information in climate change risk perception and behaviour: a case study of undergraduate students in Norwich, UK, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 43 Atkinson, P, (2006) Towards an integrated
coastal simulator of the impact of sea level rise in East Anglia: Part B3- Coastal simulator and biodiversity - Modelling the change in wintering Twite Carduelis flavirostris populations in relation to changing saltmarsh area, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 42B3
Stansby, P., Launder B., Laurence, D., Kuang, C., and Zhou, J., (2006) Towards an integrated
coastal simulator of the impact of sea level rise in East Anglia: Part A- Coastal wave climate prediction and sandbanks for coastal protection Tyndall Centre Technical Report 42A
Lenton, T. M., Loutre, M. F, Williamson, M. S., Warren, R., Goodess, C., Swann, M., Cameron, D. R., Hankin, R., Marsh, R. and Shepherd, J. G., (2006) Climate change on the millennial
timescale, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 41 Bows, A., Anderson, K. and Upham, P. (2006) Contraction & Convergence: UK carbon emissions and the implications for UK air traffic, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 40 Starkey R., Anderson K., (2005) Domestic Tradeable Quotas: A policy instrument for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from energy use:, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 39 Pearson, S., Rees, J., Poulton, C., Dickson, M., Walkden, M., Hall, J., Nicholls, R., Mokrech, M., Koukoulas, S. and Spencer, T. (2005) Towards an integrated coastal sediment dynamics and shoreline response simulator, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 38 Sorrell, S. (2005) The contribution of energy service contracting to a low carbon economy, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 37 Tratalos, J. A., Gill, J. A., Jones, A., Showler, D., Bateman, A., Watkinson, A., Sugden, R., and Sutherland, W. (2005) Interactions between tourism, breeding birds and climate change across a regional scale, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 36 Thomas, D., Osbahr, H., Twyman, C., Adger, W. N. and Hewitson, B., (2005) ADAPTIVE: Adaptations to climate change amongst natural resourcedependant societies in the developing world: across the Southern African climate gradient, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 35 Arnell, N. W., Tompkins, E. L., Adger, W. N. and Delany, K. (2005) Vulnerability to abrupt climate change in Europe, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 34 Shackley, S. and Anderson, K. et al. (2005) Decarbonising the UK: Energy for a climate conscious future, Tyndall Technical Report 33 Halliday, J., Ruddell, A., Powell, J. and Peters, M. (2005) Fuel cells: Providing heat and power in the urban environment, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 32
Gill, J, Watkinson, A. and Sutherland, W.,
(2006) Towards an integrated coastal simulator of the impact of sea level rise in East Anglia: Part B2- Coastal simulator and biodiversity models of biodiversity responses to environmental change Tyndall Centre Technical Report 42B2
Ridley, J., Gill, J, Watkinson, A. and Sutherland, W., (2006) Towards an integrated
coastal simulator of the impact of sea level rise in East Anglia: Part B1- Coastal simulator and biodiversity - Design and structure of the coastal simulator Tyndall Centre Technical Report 42B1
Haxeltine, A., Turnpenny, J., O’Riordan, T., and Warren, R (2005) The creation of a pilot phase Interactive Integrated Assessment Process for managing climate futures, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 31 Nedic, D. P., Shakoor, A. A., Strbac, G., Black, M., Watson, J., and Mitchell, C. (2005) Security assessment of futures electricity scenarios, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 30 Shepherd, J., Challenor, P., Marsh, B., Williamson, M., Yool, W., Lenton, T., Huntingford, C., Ridgwell, A and Raper, S. (2005) Planning and Prototyping a Climate Module for the Tyndall Integrated Assessment Model, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 29 Lorenzoni, I., Lowe, T. and Pidgeon, N. (2005) A strategic assessment of scientific and behavioural perspectives on ‘dangerous’ climate change, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 28 Boardman, B., Killip, G., Darby S. and Sinden, G, (2005) Lower Carbon Futures: the 40% House Project, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 27 Dearing, J.A., Plater, A.J., Richmond, N., Prandle, D. and Wolf , J. (2005) Towards a high resolution cellular model for coastal simulation (CEMCOS), Tyndall Centre Technical Report 26 Timms, P., Kelly, C., and Hodgson, F., (2005) World transport scenarios project, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 25 Brown, K., Few, R., Tompkins, E. L., Tsimplis, M. and Sortti, (2005) Responding to climate change: inclusive and integrated coastal analysis, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 24 Anderson, D., Barker, T., Ekins, P., Green, K., Köhler, J., Warren, R., Agnolucci, P., Dewick, P., Foxon, T., Pan, H. and Winne, S. (2005) ETech+: Technology policy and technical change, a dynamic global and UK approach, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 23 Abu-Sharkh, S., Li, R., Markvart, T., Ross, N., Wilson, P., Yao, R., Steemers, K., Kohler, J. and Arnold, R. (2005) Microgrids: distributed on-site generation, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 22 Shepherd, D., Jickells, T., Andrews, J., Cave, R., Ledoux, L, Turner, R., Watkinson, A., Aldridge, J. Malcolm, S, Parker, R., Young, E., Nedwell, D. (2005) Integrated modelling of an estuarine environment: an assessment of managed realignment options, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 21
Dlugolecki, A. and Mansley, M. (2005) Asset management and climate change, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 20 Shackley, S., Bray, D. and Bleda, M., (2005) Developing discourse coalitions to incorporate stakeholder perceptions and responses within the Tyndall Integrated Assessment, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 19 Dutton, A. G., Bristow, A. L., Page, M. W., Kelly, C. E., Watson, J. and Tetteh, A. (2005) The Hydrogen energy economy: its long term role in greenhouse gas reduction, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 18 Few, R. (2005) Health and flood risk: A strategic assessment of adaptation processes and policies, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 17 Brown, K., Boyd, E., Corbera-Elizalde, E., Adger, W. N. and Shackley, S (2004) How do CDM projects contribute to sustainable development? Tyndall Centre Technical Report 16 Levermore, G, Chow, D., Jones, P. and Lister, D. (2004) Accuracy of modelled extremes of temperature and climate change and its implications for the built environment in the UK, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 14 Jenkins, N., Strbac G. and Watson J. (2004) Connecting new and renewable energy sources to the UK electricity system, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 13 Palutikof, J. and Hanson, C. (2004) Integrated assessment of the potential for change in storm activity over Europe: Implications for insurance and forestry, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 12 Berkhout, F., Hertin, J., and Arnell, N. (2004) Business and Climate Change: Measuring and Enhancing Adaptive Capacity, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 11 Tsimplis, S. et al (2004) Towards a vulnerability assessment for the UK coastline, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 10 Gill, J., Watkinson, A. and Côté, I (2004). Linking sea level rise, coastal biodiversity and economic activity in Caribbean island states: towards the development of a coastal island simulator, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 9 Skinner, I., Fergusson, M., Kröger, K., Kelly, C. and Bristow, A. (2004) Critical Issues in Decarbonising Transport, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 8
Adger W. N., Brooks, N., Kelly, M., Bentham, S. and Eriksen, S. (2004) New indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 7 Macmillan, S. and Köhler, J.H., (2004) Modelling energy use in the global building stock: a pilot survey to identify available data, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 6 Steemers, K. (2003) Establishing research directions in sustainable building design, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 5
Goodess, C.M. Osborn, T. J. and Hulme, M. (2003) The identification and evaluation of suitable scenario development methods for the estimation of future probabilities of extreme weather events, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 4 Köhler, J.H. (2002). Modelling technological change, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 3 Gough, C., Shackley, S., Cannell, M.G.R. (2002). Evaluating the options for carbon sequestration, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 2 Warren, R. (2002). A blueprint for integrated assessment of climate change, Tyndall CentreTechnical Report 1
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.